Some people don’t read past headlines before they rush to open a thread on a subject.
To a person who legitimately believes that this is what God wants, calling them “a cruel and heartless bastard” would not be a persuasive argument.
If they believe that God wants them to commit torture, then they will commit torture. Calling it torture won’t convince them it’s wrong any more than telling ISIS that crucifying Yazidis is murder.
Could I ask what kind of understanding of the penalty is required? Is it just “I will get excommunicated for doing this.”? And why is ignorance a defense in this case?
Really, and we pitted the shit out of it then. EC, please try to keep up. You’ve got me agreeing with Bricker and Shodan and that’s painful. 
Newspaper headlines are usually written by editors. Reporters rarely write their own headlines.
I will if you can convince me whatever God may exist has anything whatsoever to do with excommunicating people.
Her opinion, you mean.
God would write back and tell you “Don’t blame me for this one. I never mentioned abortion once in the Bible. That’s on you guys.”
The general principle of canon law’s framework arises – as should surprise no one – from the Church teaching concerning the imputability of sin. Mortal sin exists when a sinful act is done with full advertance of the will: deliberately, in other words, knowing that you’re committing a sin. This finds expression in Western criminal law as well: a criminal must generally have both a guilty mind (the mens rea to commit the crime) as well as the actus reus that constitutes the crime.
In canon law, this principle is laid out in Can. 1321 ß1:
1323 2ƒ adds that no one is liable who was, “…without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance.” 1324 9ƒ also excludes one who “…through no personal fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept.”
Note that the ignorance must be “without fault,” that is, it must be genuine and derive from a legitimate lack of knowledge as opposed to a deliberate attempt to shield oneself from knowing.
These are general principals that apply to all offenses under canon law. 1324 ß3 provides specifically that someone who through no personal fault did not have prior knowledge of the latae sententiae penalty is not bound by it.
If you don’t believe in God, excommunication is meaningless.
Thank you for your explanations. I’m a little confused still on one point; the separation between the penalty of excommunication and the mortal sin being… applied to one’s soul, I suppose. Is it awareness of the Church’s position on the matter or agreement with it that “counts”? Let’s say I’m a Catholic who is aware of the Church’s position on abortion, but I procure one anyway because, let’s say, I personally consider there to be a moral rape exception. Because I knew I was erring from the Church, I think I would be immediately* excommunicated, but have I committed a mortal sin?
And on the other hand, what if I were a Catholic aware of/believing in the Church’s position on abortion, but not aware of the automatic excommunication? Would I, in such a circumstance, have committed a mortal sin but not be immediately excommunicated?
*By which I mean this Latae sententiae thing, but I don’t know the correct grammatic usage.
My explanations have been short because of the medium in which I’m speaking, but I may have done a disservice in trying to explain a complex position in a way that might leave some readers picturing the Church embracing a deontological resolution here.
The short answer is: if you believe, genuinely, grounded in an honest examination of your conscience, informed by the truths of the Church, that there exists some kind of moral rape exception, then there is no mortal sin.
Yes.
Excommunication is a penalty that is intended to start the process of bringing you closer to the Church. It’s not intended as any kind of a permanent sanction. It’s intended to say, “Crap! I have done something so serious that I cannot even approach the sacraments now until I get right.”
if you didn’t know that penalty existed for that particular mortal sin, you’d have no reason to assume it did. There are lots of mortal sins, and they all require you to confess before your soul is in a state of grace, but not all incur an automatic excommunication. Murder itself does not, in fact – because in general, we are all presumed to understand that murder is an evil. Abortion is not as obvious an evil, and so warning us against it is necessary before imposing that penalty.
I’ll try not to take your short explanation as an all-encompassing, as-is rule. Should I assume that when you say “informed by the truths of the Church” that you mean endeavouring in an honest way to learn what the Church says (as opposed to deliberately not looking into the matter), rather than that knowledge being a requirement, per se? I presume also that this is the “out”, or an out at least, for us merry non-Catholics so far as mortal sin goes.
This is turning into “Ask the Catholic”, for which I apologise, but I hope you’ll recognise genuine curiosity (plus a little inbuilt “hey, some rules, I must find loopholes” habit). I guess what I find confusing about the personal nature of the automatic excommunication that you’re talking about is that I don’t see what additional good it does. The Church need not know, family, friends, one’s congregation need not know. The only person who knows is you, so I assume the knowledge alone that one has committed an act worthy of excommunication is supposed to motivate the sinner to think on their ways. But if I’ve committed a mortal sin, and know it, then what’s knowledge of excommunication next to the knowledge of my soul being in jeopardy?
It’s a prompt to go ask for help, an additional incentive. The knowledge that you’ve done something which puts you out of the community, combined with (and this is where things seem to fail most often, at least at the moment*) the knowledge that this can be fixed, is an incentive to go get it fixed.
Think of it this way. Often, I prepare a sandwich without washing my hands thoroughly right before, but I wouldn’t go from shitting to preparing any kind of food without that thorough hand wash. Knowledge that something is “heavier than usual contamination”, plus knowledge that this can be cleansed, is an incentive to cleansing.
- I know several people who did something they thought excommunicated them (and it did, on paper and if you did not examine the case) and that the excommunication was… more final than the last minute of a death sentence, but who were very surprised when their case got examined thanks to some casual conversation and they were told they were welcome to join back. Mostly I’m talking about situations such as divorce from a marriage that would be annullable if they’d done the paperwork.
Not so long ago, the likelihood of running into someone who didn’t care to examine the details would have been a lot higher.
But if you’re aware you’ve committed a mortal sin, you already have what seems like the biggest motivator to reform you could possibly have over your head - the risk to your immortal soul.
With public excommunication, I can understand; in those cases, your fellow Catholics know to provide help or guidance, so I can see the additional purpose there. But with private excommunication, all you have is the knowledge that you’re excommunicated - and that seems like very little compared to the knowledge that your soul’s in jeopardy.
To go with the analogy, if you’d just had a shit and hadn’t washed your hands, I wouldn’t imagine the knowledge that you had also touched an unclean kitchen surface would provide any additional motivation to not make a sandwich without cleaning up. Or if someone did foolishly ignore the risk of that greater contamination, I can’t see them accidentally touching their countertop and only then going “Well, now I have to wash my hands.”
Absolutely – but if you care at all, you will not be able to take Communion or fully participate in the community here. That matters. Your actions have a result both right here and in the afterlife. Anyway, this example is a tough one because a doctor who provides abortions will probably not intend to stop providing them and so a Confession wouldn’t be valid anyway.
I really have little to contribute other than to say that this may be in the Top 5 of All-Time Most Educational Pit Threads. Many thanks to Bricker and the other people who are educating this lapsed Southern Baptist.
I say this with all love–only a fool could look at all this theological rules lawyering and hair-splitting and believe it has anything other than a passing resemblance to actual spiritual reality of any type.
IOW, you, and your churches, are hilariously misled and misleading.
And one day you’ll know it.
Yeah, just like watching some gamers argue the rules of a game of Dungeons and Dragons is educational aabout medieval history. Unless you’re interested in theology completely separately from anythjng else, of course, in which case it IS educational.
Not necessarily.
Gina is a physician and an atheist from a Catholic family. She becomes an abortion provider. Her family knows that she is automatically excommunicated, and based on this excommunication begins to treat her more coldly.
Gina might not believe the excommunication has any divine power, but it nonetheless can harm her family relationships.